This is Scott Sumner:
And don’t say that “everyone is entitled to an opinion,” or that the bubble thing is a valid perspective. No, as Paul Krugman pointed out in Pop Internationalism, if you don’t understand the theory of comparative advantage you are not entitled to an opinion that protection makes sense today because comparative advantage doesn’t apply to the modern world for blah blah blah reasons. And I would say that people who don’t understand basic AS/AD are not entitled to an opinion that unconventional monetary policies that focus on “art and wine” markets are needed. First you have to show you understand conventional policies. And everywhere we look we see fewer and fewer people on both the left and the right that understand even economics 101. People who don’t are not entitled to an opinion. People who do, but still reject econ101, are entitled to an opinion.
This is exactly why Scott is one of the most popular Econ bloggers in the world. He just writes great stuff. Have a nice weekend all of you.
PS I know you all read the quote before at Scott’s blog – after all nobody would be reading my blog had it not been for Scott.
The Market Monetarist 
Neil
/ December 6, 2013You’re right. I found you through Scott’s Money Illusion blog. I found Scott through Russ Roberts’ Econtalk.org. That’s how these ‘interwebs’ work.
Mike Sax
/ December 8, 2013Lars I don’t want to be the skunk at the garden party but I don’t really find this comment of Scott’s so admirable. I agree though that he says it makes him what he is. I find it rather elitist and not in a good way. It implies that only supposed monetary experts have a right to any say over what kind of monetary and economic policy we get. And we do see that the best laboratory for Monetarism so far has been Pinochet’s Chile.
I do agree that he’s a great blogger and I like many others read him daily. I don’t hold that because I disagree with someone I can’t learn from them-quite the opposite. I’ve certainly learned a lot from Sumner.
Blue Aurora
/ December 13, 2013Although I’m late to this party…I’ve something to say with regard to the title change of Scott Sumner’s book from The Midas Curse: Gold, Wages and the Great Depression to The Midas Paradox: A New Look at the Great Depression and Economic Instability.
I personally think that changing part of the title to “Paradox” makes things slightly more interesting, but changing the subtitle seems a bit superfluous in my view at least. Although I know you’re not Scott Sumner’s secretary, Lars Christensen, I do have a suggestion for a synthesis of the two titles: The Midas Paradox, Gold, Wages, and Economic Instability in the Great Depression. Sounds better, IMHO. But of course, it’s not for me to judge.